Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
on foreign policy. when his father ron paul ran for president he got in trouble with a lot of republicans because his foreign policy was anti-war and isolationist which a lot of republicans didn't like. rand paul is departing from that, trying to make himself more acceptable, i think, to mainstream republicans. >> so you think we'll have another paul on the ballot in 2016. is rand paul remotely electable, nia-malika henderson? >> i'm not really sure. >> nationally. >> if you look at what happens, the republicans as much as we can talk about how they have moved to the right, the last candidates that have come out of these primaries have been moderates. you think about mitt romney, john mccain. is there going to be a third party, the tea party that breaks away from the gop. we'll have to wait and see. >> thanks to both of you. good to see you on this sunday. >> thank you. >> just ahead, top of the hour. the big dig has a new meaning in boston. digging out from more than three feet of snow, but it won't be in time for school tomorrow. good news force kids. bad news for parent. plus, californ
as a kid. went off and served in the military, and was a foreign policy specialist in the senate. chairman of the foreign relations committee. he's basically been campaigning, subtly, for this job, all along. and you can just see the comfort level that he had there. you know, those of us who have covered him in politics, he's kind of awkward, a little bit difficult. you remember the situation with the wind surfing. you know, i voted for the $87 billion before i voted against it. he has some awkwardness in the retail politics area. he has no awkwardness when it comes to diplomacy. and you can see him really enjoying, flying around capitals of the world. this is what john kerry was meant to do. >> dana milbank of "the washington post," good to see you. >>> senator bob menendez breaking his silence. it is time now for the poly-side bar. >> the smears that the right wing have been pushing since the election, and it's totally unsubstantiated. it's amazing to me that anonymous, nameless, faceless individuals on a website can drive that type of story into the mainstream. the bottom line is all of
in the war on terror and is this legal architecture going to guide american foreign policy in perpetuity because there will always, i guarantee you, thomas, somewhere in the world be someone somewhere who is plotting to do something terrible to the united states, always. that is going to be absolutely the case. and if that is all it takes for us to be in a state of war, we will be in a state of war forever. >> isn't that the new ghormal of what we've evolved to in a country where we have been in a perpetual state of war for a dozen years now? >> yes, but i don't think it should be. i don't think the mere presence of somebody plotting to do something terrible to the united states should be the bar that triggers us being in a state of war. you know, england got hit, spain got hit by terrorist associated with al qaeda. that doesn't mean spain is in a permanent state of war. it doesn't mean england is in a permanent state of war. there are nations that have been targeted by truly genuinely mallef lent forces and it doesn't mean they reorder their thinking, their strategy, their legal archite
.s. foreign policy for decades which many acknowledge they have, how is this different? >> targeted killings have not been part of the u.s. policy for decades. they were engaged in up until the 70s, the congress stepped up and president ford put a ban in place and they only reappeared after 9/11 because of the threat we now find ourselves in. so they're not something that we are used to doing. we are used to killing people in war, but weir not used to sending secret operatives or secret drones around the world, naming an individual person and deciding he's worthy of death and killing him. that is new and post-9/11 stuff and president obama is the person who upped the ante on this. >> what happens when another nation acquires and uses the same drone technology that we've been talking about and they exercise little to no restraint? >> you don't need a drone. all you need is a rifle. this is the sort of policy that you can apply to any sort of situation. the technology is the secondary question and once you decide that you can kill people for whatever reasons you like including your own citizen
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)